what if they haven't?

This is bigger than any of us could imagine.

They are off the cliff @Eden

i would argue that they are only partially off the cliff, and not even "in flight"

Nancy Pelosi is literally a psychopath👀

No they definitely aren’t flying, dropping like a rock into a sea of nuts @Eden

she must be warming her feet at the fire of hell on a nightly basis

Lol

I don't agree because the word "people" is also specifically mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.

The right of the people to bear arms.... so if the only requirement was a citizen then why even mention "in order to maintain a well regulated milita" ?

In fact the Militia part starts it off.... "In order to maintain a well regulated milita...." So its telling you WHY....

If they wanted people to have the right to bear arms for home protection, hunting, and defending yoruself against your government (as if often suggested) then why even mention the Militia?

Why not say: "It shall be the right of the people to bear arms. period"?

Trumps going to jail

Haha

Or at least be in court forever

https://fox8.com/news/horned-shirtless-capitol-rioter-wants-pardon-from-trump/

Because you're not remembering the context of the meaning behind these words of the time. Our language has changed in unrecognizable ways, and so has the perception of meaning.

LOL... yeah... I saw that his lawyer is saying Trump is OBLIGATED to pardon him... and presumably all the rest of the folks there

Again. I disagree. Older Supreme Court cases (closer in time to that language) have been more in line with my position than yours....

So that just is not an accurate statement

depends on how close ... up until the 20th century an ordinary citizen could own just about anything the military had without much fuss

In cases in the 19th Century, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does not bar state regulation of firearms. For example, in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875), the Court stated that the Second Amendment “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,” and in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886), the Court reiterated that the Second Amendment “is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States.” Although most of the rights in the Bill of Rights have been selectively incorporated (PDF) into the rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and thus cannot be impaired by state governments, the Second Amendment has never been so incorporated.

@meglide and @Maw

Those cases were upholding gun restrictions

@meglide That article doesn't make sense, since my understanding is that it is literally impossible to conceive of anyone considering Trump's actions as inciting.

My cases come pre-1900s, so not sure that's true.

So are the one's I just posted

"Second Amendment “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,”" This is literally just saying it's a states rights issue.

But you show me yours and I will show you mine, @Maw

"is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States.” is another states-rights issue.

This isn't at all suggesting what you're saying.

Right... so that the States could ban guns

Yes, but we're talking about the idea behind "militia" not state's rights.

guy is wearing horns and no shirt ... not like his "legal" arguments are going to make sense either?

I just explained your quote. To say that the Bill of Rights and in this case the second amendment does not restrict the states then that means the state could establish a gun ban but the Congress could not

and your point is? ... and it was some 50 years later till you see any restrictions at the federal level

so why would the states try to defy the national bill of rights?

@Maw the history of the Court on the 2nd Amendment has changed over time.... There were cases where the Court seemed to suggest that a State could absolutely restrict gun ownership - but that the federal government/Congress could not restrict that right of the people.

Now again... I am NOT saying that even if the 2nd Amendment only protected gun ownership for use in a well regulated - does not mean that you could not still own guns. It would just be a property right... guns are items of commerce which you can own.

And that property could not be taken from you without Due Process.

"The right of the people to bear arms.... so if the only requirement was a citizen then why even mention "in order to maintain a well regulated milita" ?" You're the one that was arguing the idea of the constitution not referencing your average citizens. I don't know why you're pivoting on this to state's rights.

When this is constitutional interpretation.

not since Heller ... you could argue that before that the states could ban firearms but they never actually did and when DC restricted so much that it effectively banned firearms SCOTUS first ruling on an effective ban was to assert that the right is an individual right which only makes sense given it's place in the amendments to the Constitution ... can you imagine any of the other amendments being treated like you suggest for the 2nd

The idea is that the constitution was about limiting the federal and not the state. That didn't come until later.

Did he get his Vegan food.

This is my overarching argument.... I do not believe that the founders wanted to use the 2nd Amendment to provide Constitutional level protections of owning a gun. And it simply makes no sense that you would even mention "in order to maintain a well regulated milita" if the right was so broad as to cover a person's right not own a gun for self protection, hunting or even protecting oneself from their government.

They did. That's why they said "the people"